# DASHRATH @ JOLO & ANR. ETC v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

- **Citation:** [2018] 1 S.C.R. 368
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-01-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 197-198 of 2018
- **Bench:** R. K. Agrawal, R. Banumathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dashrath-jolo-anr-etc-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-32566
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r/w s.149 - Murder - Unlawful
assembly - On facts, death of three persons and injuries to two by
the appellants - Appellants found guilty of forming unlawful
assembly armed with deadly weapons, with the common object to
commit murder of three and attempt to commit murder of PW 19 -
Conviction u/s. 302 read with s. 149 and sentenced to life
imprisonment as also convicted for other offences - High Court
upheld the order of the trial court - On appeal, held: Both the trial
court as well as the High Court accepted the evidence of PW-19,
injured eye-witness, whose evidence stands on a higher footing -
Weapons were also recovered from the appellants - Considering
the circumstances and the entire incident, it cannot be said that the
complainant party were the aggressors and that the appellants acted
in self defence - The submission that failure of the prosecution to
explain the injuries on the person of the appellants fatal to the
prosecution case, cannot be accepted - It cannot be held as a matter
of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an
injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain
the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so, the
prosecution case should be disbelieved - Further, the injuries
sustained by the appellants were simple in nature and answers
elicited from the doctors that those injuries found on the accused
could be self inflicted - Thus, upon appreciation of evidence and
on well considered reasonings, the courts below rightly convicted
the appellants - Evidence.
Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing
(2001) 6 SCC 145 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2001) 6 SCC 145
 referred to
Para 9
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 368
368
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
DASHRATH @ JOLO & ANR. ETC.
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 197-198 of 2018)
JANUARY 23, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r/w s.149 - Murder - Unlawful
assembly - On facts, death of three persons and injuries to two by
the appellants - Appellants found guilty of forming unlawful
assembly armed with deadly weapons, with the common object to
commit murder of three and attempt to commit murder of PW 19 -
Conviction u/s. 302 read with s. 149 and sentenced to life
imprisonment as also convicted for other offences - High Court
upheld the order of the trial court - On appeal, held: Both the trial
court as well as the High Court accepted the evidence of PW-19,
injured eye-witness, whose evidence stands on a higher footing -
Weapons were also recovered from the appellants - Considering
the circumstances and the entire incident, it cannot be said that the
complainant party were the aggressors and that the appellants acted
in self defence - The submission that failure of the prosecution to
explain the injuries on the person of the appellants fatal to the
prosecution case, cannot be accepted - It cannot be held as a matter
of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an
injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain
the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so, the
prosecution case should be disbelieved - Further, the injuries
sustained by the appellants were simple in nature and answers
elicited from the doctors that those injuries found on the accused
could be self inflicted - Thus, upon appreciation of evidence and
on well considered reasonings, the courts below rightly convicted
the appellants - Evidence.
Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing
(2001) 6 SCC 145 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2001) 6 SCC 145
 referred to
Para 9
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 368
368
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 197-198 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2014 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 598 and 599 of 2009.
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar
Sinha, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 13.05.2014 passed
by the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissing the criminal appeal Nos.59899/2009 thereby confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the
trial court.
3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that, on 03.08.2008 at
about 1.30 p.m., PW-19-Birichram went to the house of one Bhojram
for inviting him for the sixth day birth of his child (chhati). The appellants
who are neighbours of Bhojram and were standing in front of their houses,
threatened PW-19 that they will kill him. When PW-19 asked the
appellants not to abuse, appellant Dashrath @ Jolo who was having
battleaxe alongwith one Phodol @ Duryodhan (since dead) who was
also having battleaxe and one Jagru (since dead) who was holding kudari
and some others who were holding sticks, assaulted PW-19. PW-14Chumbai and PW-17-Gayatri Bai who were coming towards the spot
tried to intervene in the incident. At the same time, deceased Chhedilal
who was also coming towards his field requested the appellants not to
beat PW-19; but the appellants leaving PW-19, started assaulting
Chhedilal. Phodol @ Duryodhan (since dead) crushed the head of
Chhedilal by blunt part of battleaxe. At the same time, deceased Bhuru
@ Parmanand, deceased Bablu, PW-20-Dilip Kumar Yadav and PW21-Rajesh Yadav also came to the spot one by one and tried to intervene,
but the appellants assaulted all of them and caused the death of Chhedilal,
Bablu and Bhuru @ Parmanand on the spot. PW-19-Birichram and
PW-20-Dilip Kumar Yadav sustained injuries.
4. All accused were arrested and based on their disclosure
statement, battleaxe was recovered from appellant Dashrath @ Jolo
DASHRATH @ JOLO & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
and; Kudari recovered from Jagru @ Mohanlal; sticks recovered from
appellants Anand and Laxmi. Blood stained clothes were also recovered
from the accused. Thereafter, all the seized articles were sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination and presence of
blood upon clothes and weapons has been confirmed vide FSL Report
(Ex.P-71). After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed
against the appellants and other accused.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 22
witnesses. The trial court also examined one defence witness DW-1Dr. Ashutosh Mishra. The trial court found the appellants guilty of forming
unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, with the common object
to commit murder of Chedilal, Bablu and Bhuru and attempt to commit
murder of Birichram convicted all the eight accused under Section 302
IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for life. They were also convicted for other offences and
sentenced to imprisonment.
6. Being aggrieved, all the accused filed appeals before the High
Court. During pendency of the appeal before the High Court, accused
Phodol @ Duryodhan and Mohal Lal died. High Court dismissed the
appeal preferred by appellants herein (Dashrath @ Jolo, Anand and
Laxmi) and confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
imposed upon them by the trial court. The lady accused viz. Dujmati and
Triveni Bai were acquitted by the High Court.
7. PW-19 has clearly spoken about the incident that the first
appellant Dashrath @ Jolo was holding battleaxe, the deceased accused
Jagru was holding kudari and the other accused persons were also
armed with sticks inflicted injuries on the deceased persons. Both the
trial court as well as the High Court has accepted the evidence of PW19, being an injured eye witness, whose evidence stands on a higher
footing. The weapons were also recovered from the appellants herein.
Upon appreciation of the injured eye witness PW-19, which was
corroborated by PW-14 (Chumbai) and considering the fact that the
weapons were recovered from the appellants herein, the trial court as
well as the High Court recorded the findings that the appellants and the
other accused including the deceased Jagru and others have formed an
unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder of
Chhedilal, Bablu and Bhuru @ Parmanand.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
371
8. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is
that the occurrence took place in front of the house of the appellants
whereby the complainant and the deceased wanted to show off the
celebration of the birth of the child and any act of the accused could only
be in their self-defence. Merely because the occurrence happened in
front of the house of the appellants, it cannot be said that the complainant
party were the aggressors. To find out as to who were the aggressors,
the entire incident must be examined with due care in its proper setting.
The injured Birichram (PW-19) went to the house of Bhojram for inviting
him and others for sixth day birth of child (chhati); the appellants who
were neighbours of Bhojram were present in front of their houses and
they challenged Birichram (PW-19). When Birichram (PW-19) went to
the house of Bhojram to invite him for the function, he was not armed;
only the appellants were stated to be armed with battleaxe and sticks.
Considering the circumstances and the entire incident, the courts below
rightly negatived the contention that the complainant party were the
aggressors and that the appellants acted in self defence.
9. The next contention urged by learned counsel is that the
prosecution has not chosen to explain the injuries on the person of the
appellants and this is fatal to case of prosecution. It cannot be held as a
matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained
an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain
the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so, the prosecution
case should be disbelieved. Before holding that non-explanation of the
injuries on the persons of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses
may affect the prosecution case, the court has to be satisfied of the
existence of two conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of the accused
was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused
at the time of the occurrence in question...[vide Takhaji Hiraji v.
Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 1454]
10. By going through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the
High Court, it is seen that the injuries sustained by the appellants were
simple in nature and while so it was not incumbent upon the prosecution
to explain those injuries. It is also relevant to note the answers elicited
from the doctors that those injuries found on the accused could be self
inflicted.
11. Upon appreciation of evidence and on well considered
reasonings, the trial court as well as the High Court rightly convicted the
DASHRATH @ JOLO & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
appellants/accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC
and other offences. We find no ground to interfere with the verdict of
conviction and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants/
accused. The appeals are dismissed.
Nidhi Jain
 Appeals dismissed.